Sciences Failings: Is Philosophy Responsible?

1.) Science has become a numbers game, a game of probability, which kills possibilities.

2.) Science only considers potential within the confines of applied logic and the precedent of established scientific structures.

3.) Dynamism is unorthodox, therefore discounted by established, authoritarian sciences.

What possibilities?

What potential?

What’s dynamism?

Phyllo,

"What possibilities?

What potential?

What’s dynamism?"-Phyllo

Exactly my points. Those 3 things (possibilities, potential, dynamism) are treated by science as non-existents. Pragmatism dominates and limits. This may tie into my thread about value as well.

Okay, I will let you have your discussion about three undefined and unexplained words with someone else. :smiley:

Phyllo

Yah, you were smiling a post ago, which was cute, but prepare to frown. Google any further definitions, for the rest of the words I used, in English.

Possibility- A thing that may happen or be the case.

Potential-having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in the future.

Dynamism-the quality of being characterized by vigorous activity and progress.

I have a dictionary. What I don’t have is a peephole into your mind. I know what the words mean but I don’t know what you mean by the words in this particular context.

You write three sentences and they mean something to you … they probably mean a lot to you. They don’t mean much to anyone else.

Phyllo,

You speaking on the behalf of everyone else is like science speaking on the behalf of the nature of reality. I have issues with the effectiveness of scientific methods and approaches. Science ignores and discounts too much of what those 3 words I defined just for you can bring to the table of progress, of knowledge, of truth.

I speak as someone who is separate from you … I have no idea what you are talking about. I suspect that I am not alone. I cannot be certain of that but I think that it’s a reasonable suspicion.

If others understand what you are saying, then by all means, let them come forward and discuss it with you. Maybe they will explain it to me. Maybe not.

Phyllo,

“sci·ence-
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”

Is this definition of science agreeable to you? If not, humor me with one that is.

Is philosophy responsible for the failures of science?

Yes. But it’s mostly because philosophy doesn’t exist yet.

Science in a sense has divorced itself from philosophy, yes. In this way science is left unguided and without direction.

Science has essentially become for profit or engrained into the military industrial complex.

I firmly believe that God is Math, and thus everything is a number game in the end. The only real problem is to have the perfect mathematical foundations, which are impossible when metaphysics is left out.

The darwinian philosophy gave us scientism, enough is enough, they are failed experiments.

Just a coincidence? Well not exactly: Marty Leeds Live at the Isabel Bader Theatre, Toronto Canada (must watch and keep your remarks til the end). Marty links all belief systems, their universality and human’s 10 fingers
youtube.com/watch?v=jS2-UJBrDoc

A number doesn’t have independent existence, it is simply a representation of something else.

Saying God is Math is an utter banality. But a common, cliche one.

God and mathematics are both human invented abstractions.